↓ Skip to main content

Predicting the Extension of Biomedical Ontologies

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predicting the Extension of Biomedical Ontologies
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002630
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catia Pesquita, Francisco M. Couto

Abstract

Developing and extending a biomedical ontology is a very demanding task that can never be considered complete given our ever-evolving understanding of the life sciences. Extension in particular can benefit from the automation of some of its steps, thus releasing experts to focus on harder tasks. Here we present a strategy to support the automation of change capturing within ontology extension where the need for new concepts or relations is identified. Our strategy is based on predicting areas of an ontology that will undergo extension in a future version by applying supervised learning over features of previous ontology versions. We used the Gene Ontology as our test bed and obtained encouraging results with average f-measure reaching 0.79 for a subset of biological process terms. Our strategy was also able to outperform state of the art change capturing methods. In addition we have identified several issues concerning prediction of ontology evolution, and have delineated a general framework for ontology extension prediction. Our strategy can be applied to any biomedical ontology with versioning, to help focus either manual or semi-automated extension methods on areas of the ontology that need extension.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
United States 2 5%
Unknown 40 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Chemistry 3 7%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2012.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,480
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,780
of 187,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#78
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 187,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.